Note: The end date of this project : 31st December 2015. For information on this project please contact Professor John Preston ([email protected])
Project brief
This comparative project (UK, Japan, Germany, US & New Zealand) examined how governments prepare citizens for collapse in the Critical National Infrastructure (CNI); how they model collapse and population response; case studies of CNI collapse (with particular reference to health and education) and the globalisation of CNI policy.
Introduction
The protection of the critical infrastructure has always been a national priority but in the last decade it has become an area of strategic and interconnected policy. Protection of the critical infrastructure is a 'hard' empirical problem as it is complex, requires inter-disciplinary thinking, is subject to definitional problems, massive inter-connections and inter-dependencies and involves complex legal, governance and ownership issues.
Although the general population are not considered to comprise part of the critical national infrastructure, their interactions and reactions to that infrastructure are very important in policy decision making. For example, a major attack on transport infrastructure will present major challenges for the communications network and will elicit a variety of public responses. It is a truism to state that there are dependencies of the population on the infrastructure not only for their basic needs (food, water, sanitation, energy) but also for communications (mass media and internet) and their safety (the integrity of nuclear power stations and flood barriers).
The general population are also involved in the protection of the infrastructure through involvement in civil protection activities (through Citizens Corps and enhanced Neighbourhood Watch activities around sites of strategic interest) and in public advice and information campaigns about the sensible use of resources in a crisis. In an actual collapse of the critical infrastructure the supposed 'national character' of citizens is often referred to and generalisations in the media are made as to the reasons for varying responses.
Primary research questions
Research design and methodology
Methodologically the study will focus on national systems in developed countries. The focus will be on different 'welfare regimes' being broadly liberal market economies (the UK, US and New Zealand) and broadly centralised market economies (Germany and Japan).
Project work plan
Months 1-12
To consider the key comparative differences and similarities between the countries with regard to questions one and two. This will involve both qualitative work (on policies, models and assumptions concerning population response to collapse of the critical infrastructure) and quantitative analysis (historically on country data and on critical infrastructure collapse which will create a panel data time series as used in Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006).
Months 12-24
Will be concerned with developing a series of comparative case studies on critical infrastructure collapse and to analyse them with regard to their comparative context.
Months 24-36
Will be reflexive and for the purposes of validation.
Project brief
This comparative project (UK, Japan, Germany, US & New Zealand) examined how governments prepare citizens for collapse in the Critical National Infrastructure (CNI); how they model collapse and population response; case studies of CNI collapse (with particular reference to health and education) and the globalisation of CNI policy.
Introduction
The protection of the critical infrastructure has always been a national priority but in the last decade it has become an area of strategic and interconnected policy. Protection of the critical infrastructure is a 'hard' empirical problem as it is complex, requires inter-disciplinary thinking, is subject to definitional problems, massive inter-connections and inter-dependencies and involves complex legal, governance and ownership issues.
Although the general population are not considered to comprise part of the critical national infrastructure, their interactions and reactions to that infrastructure are very important in policy decision making. For example, a major attack on transport infrastructure will present major challenges for the communications network and will elicit a variety of public responses. It is a truism to state that there are dependencies of the population on the infrastructure not only for their basic needs (food, water, sanitation, energy) but also for communications (mass media and internet) and their safety (the integrity of nuclear power stations and flood barriers).
The general population are also involved in the protection of the infrastructure through involvement in civil protection activities (through Citizens Corps and enhanced Neighbourhood Watch activities around sites of strategic interest) and in public advice and information campaigns about the sensible use of resources in a crisis. In an actual collapse of the critical infrastructure the supposed 'national character' of citizens is often referred to and generalisations in the media are made as to the reasons for varying responses.
Primary research questions
- How is the critical infrastructure defined and operationalised in different national contexts? How is population response defined, modelled and refined in the light of crisis?
- What are the most important comparative differences between countries with regard to differences in mass population response to critical infrastructure collapse? To what degree are factors such as differences in national levels of trust, degrees of educational or income inequality, social capital or welfare system differences particularly in the education and health systems significant in understanding differential population response to critical infrastructure collapse?
- How can a comparative understanding of mass population response to critical infrastructure collapse help us to prepare for future crisis?
Research design and methodology
Methodologically the study will focus on national systems in developed countries. The focus will be on different 'welfare regimes' being broadly liberal market economies (the UK, US and New Zealand) and broadly centralised market economies (Germany and Japan).
Project work plan
Months 1-12
To consider the key comparative differences and similarities between the countries with regard to questions one and two. This will involve both qualitative work (on policies, models and assumptions concerning population response to collapse of the critical infrastructure) and quantitative analysis (historically on country data and on critical infrastructure collapse which will create a panel data time series as used in Green, Preston and Janmaat, 2006).
Months 12-24
Will be concerned with developing a series of comparative case studies on critical infrastructure collapse and to analyse them with regard to their comparative context.
Months 24-36
Will be reflexive and for the purposes of validation.